PAR Home

Welcome to the Preserve Annapolis Roads website.

Please check the Meeting Notices and Breaking News tabs above for the latest information and activities of PAR.

What is Preserve Annapolis Roads (PAR)?

PAR is a group of individual property owners who are exercising their individual legal rights to protect the restrictive covenants that were assigned to the Golf Course parcel within Annapolis Roads.

What are Preserve Annapolis Roads’ goals?

PAR intends t0
– ensure that all homeowners in Annapolis Roads understand the nature and intent of the covenants that restrict the use of the Golf Course parcel,
– educate and assist homeowners who choose to exercise their right to enforce those covenants,
– and ultimately to prevent any potential buyer of the Golf Course property from causing those covenants to be broken which will pave the way for uses which Annapolis Roads property owners feel are adverse to their enjoyment of the land and disruptive of the character of the community.

What is the purpose of the covenants?

The purpose of the covenants, as stated by Judge North in the 2006 decision against Plaintiff Ribera Development, LLC (developer John Stamato’s company), is to protect the quiet peace and enjoyment of the homeowners in the community, and to maintain the character of the community in accordance with the original common scheme and plan.

In her decision in 2006, Judge North found that “no material change in the physical condition of the golf course or the surrounding community had occurred eliminating the original reason for the restrictions . . . . The purpose of the covenant is today as it was in 1980.”

She also found that at no time did the Annapolis Roads community oppose St. Mary’s as a user or buyer of the Golf Course. The Judge added that “the Court has no doubt that [Annapolis Roads] would have opposed this project no matter who the proposed user was.”

Judge North confirmed that each individual homeowner had the right to vocalize their opposition to proposed uses of the Golf Course that they felt were in violation of the restrictive covenants.

In her decision in 2006, the proposed use of the land for athletic fields would create a “material change in the physical condition of the Golf Course,” and would result in significant grading. In addition, the decision found that the covenants existed to protect the Golf Course from uses that the community felt were “adverse to their enjoyment of that land, and to maintain the character of their community.”

Judge North further found that the community is entitled to oppose a sale or plan that it believes may harm the Annapolis Roads community.

What uses are allowed under the existing covenants?

Based on the 2006 opinion by Judge North, the uses allowed by the covenants are:

As a Golf Course

Other recreational uses

Horticultural nurseries

Conservation uses

Accessory uses, including parking for the other uses

Rights of way and/or easements to provide access to inaccessible areas

Temporary and permanent structures for uses listed above

No use

What could cause the restrictive covenants to be broken?

When and if there is a major change in neighborhood conditions, the restrictive covenant would be broken or “become unenforceable” under the doctrine of “changed conditions.” An example of changed conditions would be allowing “educational” use of the land, which is not stipulated in the covenants. If we allowed a purchaser to use the land for educational purposes, it would constitute a material change in conditions that would render the covenants meaningless and would violate the declaration of restriction on use of the Golf Course.

What happens if the covenants are broken?

If the restrictive covenants are broken, they are gone forever, and Annapolis Roads property owners will have no further say in the use of the property, no matter what the proposed use, whether it’s an athletic complex, a building, ball fields, townhomes, or houses. For example, a developer would have the right to build a subdivision, or other tract of homes, on the Golf Course property. There could be a petition to annex the property to the City of Annapolis, paving the way for less restrictive development than Anne Arundel County regulations allow.

How did the covenants come about?

In the early 1980’s, developers wanted to construct apartments on the Golf Course. The residents of Annapolis Roads strongly objected, saying they had been promised that the Golf Course would always remain Open Space for the benefit of the community. The restrictive covenants were a result of a legal settlement in which it was proven that Annapolis Roads had long ago established a common plan for the community which limits the use of land in Annapolis Roads to residential use.

In a settlement reached in 1986, after 13 years of litigation, ARPOA conveyed any property interest it had in the Golf Course in exchange for the recording of Restrictive Covenants, dated June 3, 1987 that would protect the quiet, residential character of the community. Among other matters, as part of the settlement, ARPOA was given title to the Overlook, subject to restriction to recreational use (specifically “community recreational use as parkland), and the Beach, subject to restriction against any permanent structures. The settlement also conveyed to developers the right, title and interest in what is now the Bayer property, subject to the restriction that it can only be used for residential purposes.

What is the proposed use of the Golf Course by the contracted buyers?

In the information that the buyers released to the public on November 9th, they stated their intentions to use the Golf Course as follows:
– for instructional purposes, specifically in support of the private school’s outdoor education, environmental studies and athletic programs,
– to serve as outdoor classrooms for students who are studying the environment and to provide space for outdoor education activities, and
– for playing fields to be used for after-school practices and games.

Key School’s proposed uses of the Golf Course to build athletic fields, as well as facilities for their athletic teams, in addition to other instructional purposes, are not permitted by the covenants. Nowhere in the covenants does it provide for institutional educational activities on the golf course. It is essential that we voice our opposition to any proposed use that violates and thus invalidates the covenants.

How might these uses constitute “changed conditions?”

Based on our experience with another potential buyer of the Golf Course, St. Mary’s School, the proposed uses would change the quiet residential character of our community, which could void the covenants by making them meaningless or ineffective. In other words, if a major change in the neighborhood conditions occurs such that enforcement of the restrictions would no longer provide substantial benefit to the homeowners in Annapolis Roads, the restrictive covenants would become unenforceable under the legal doctrine of changed conditions.

Why doesn’t the community know more?

The buyers did not openly discuss or present their plan to the community in advance of the purchase. Their representatives met with the chairman of the ARPOA Land Use Committee (which has since been de-commissioned) over the summer of 2011 and indicated possible interest in the property, but did not follow the agreed-upon protocol, or present plans to the committee. If they had, the committee would have presented those plans to the ARPOA Board.

How can the community find out what the plan is?

The ARPOA Board first met with Key School representatives on November 15, 2011 and presented their findings to the community at a community information-sharing meeting on Saturday, November 19th. Key School has not shared the updated contract or specific plans with the ARPOA board at this time. Contact any Board member for more information.

What are the environmental concerns with a change in use of the Golf Course?

The grading necessary to create athletic fields are a major concern. Approximately 1/2 of the Golf Course is within the Resource Conservation Area (RCA) which is the most restrictive and protected designation within the Critical Area. The remaining half of the golf course property is Open Space (OS) zoning which is also restrictive and allows for only very limited usage. The zoning restrictions from the RCA zone and the OS zone are in addition to those restrictions that were placed on the property by the Covenants.

Construction may impact the aquifers that feed Annapolis Roads’ wells, negatively affect the Ogleton Woods, and present other issues including truck traffic, noise and dirt. Toxic chemicals used in Golf Course maintenance could be unearthed, affecting air and water quality.

Is the County going to help?

Anne Arundel County’s watershed stewards are already involved, and have stated that they will work to prevent any treatment of the land that would adversely affect the watershed, or break any regulation or law that protects the watershed. The County Health Department will also be involved in any environmental threats that could affect the health of residents.

What can I do to support the restrictive covenants?

-Vocally oppose the use of the Golf Course land for athletic fields or educational purposes. Both proposed uses are inconsistent with our covenants. Either condition would materially change the conditions in the neighborhood, causing the covenants to be adversely affected, and opening the way for development or annexation.

-Join your neighbors who have pledged to oppose the proposed uses of the land, and attend PAR meetings, post a sign on your property, or volunteer to help distribute information to Annapolis Roads residents and the surrounding communities.

30 Responses to PAR Home

A question to which I should know the answer already, but don’t: When holding an informal meeting, as the Board is this evening, is there any obligation to publish an agenda, advance notice of specified length, or minutes after the fact, even when residents are not invited?
Thanks

I just saw an announcement of an informational meeting at St Annes this coming Saturday. Will PAR be a part of this meeting? Has PAR been in contact with the board since last Sunday’s meeting? Since the board has retained legal counsel, what effect with this have on the contrbutions to PAR’s legal defense fund?

Dale,
PAR will be attending the meeting, but has not been asked by the Board to be a formal part of the meeting. To our knowledge, the Board hasn’t yet retained an attorney, but should be seeking a firm that will not have a conflict of interest. Since PAR is not a Board committee, Board-related questions should be presented to any Board member.

Your last question is a good one–we don’t have an answer to it at the moment, but will keep you apprised as soon as we have more information. Thanks for commenting, and check back on the website frequently for updates.

It is a team effort, involving a number of PAR members. Thank you for recognizing the amount of work we put into it to get the information out to the entire community as quickly as possible. We hope you’ll check back often as the site is continually updated.

Although I’m not a member of the Annapolis Roads community, I live close nearby in Mariners Point and have greatly enjoyed using the golf course. It is also a major resource for senior citizens, a group of whom play there three times a week. I think it would be in the general public interest as well as that of the community to retain the golf course in its present state

Thank you, Mr. Gruber. We appreciate this expression of support and are working to ensure that if it can’t be maintained as a golf course, at least it will continue to be open space that might give all our community’s citizens a safe and lovely place to walk, or enjoy other passive recreation.

Since this issue is being brought to our backyards has any thought been given to setting up informational pickets outside Key School at the start and end of the school day when parents are dropping and picking up students?

Thanks for adding your voice in support of the covenants. The ARPOA board is planning house parties to discuss the issue–be sure to attend one and speak out against any uses that could invalidate the covenants, including classrooms and athletic fields, and any plan that subdivides the property.

Good neighbors, I just came from the well attended and very energized and energizing PAR meeting. Duly motivated, I volunteered to help get the word out on social media, starting with Twitter, about our community’s opposition to the latest attack on our treasured and hard-fought covenants.

By focusing at first on Twitter where Key School has an active presence and 323 followers, I think we can in short order make a dent in the misperception among Key School teachers and administrators that our community supports their proposed purchase. We can also start to get the attention of parents who have been uninformed or misinformed.

Here’s how you can help in a way that is very easy and only takes seconds each day:

If you already have a Twitter account or are willing to take three minutes to set one up (it’s free at twitter.com), just follow me (my ID is @dmcglauflin). I’ll follow you back. Then, just visit twitter daily and retweet my daily tweets, which will include #keyschool and, therefore, will be visible to anyone on Twitter who’s saying anything about Key School or searching for information about Key School.

If you do nothing more than that, you’re already doing a lot! But if you have a little more time and are a little more familiar with Twitter (or willing to learn, here are a few other things you can do:
1. Put something like PRESERVE ANNAPOLIS ROADS http://www.preservear.org in your Twitter profile. Check out my profile to see how I did it. Feel free to do likewise or get more creative.
2. Do your own daily tweets using info off the PAR website; then I and other neighbors who have Twitter accounts can retweet your tweets. Be sure to include #keyschool in each tweet to make your tweets visible and easy to find.
3. Search for people you know well in Annapolis to see if they have a Twitter account, and follow those that do. Especially search for and follow any people you know who work at or have kids attending Key School. If they follow you back, they will directly get all of your tweets and retweets.
4. Monitor what Key School itself is saying on Twitter by going to its Twitter account (@keyschool) and following them. If you look down through their past tweets, you’ll see that on Nov 11, they posted the following, which shows how important it is to monitor them:
@KeySchool announces purchase agreement for 70 acres of Annapolis Golf Course property. bit.ly/veEbVq
5. From time to time, add other hashtags to your tweets, such as #Annapolis #AnneArundel and #ChesBay.

In summary, by monitoring #keyschool on Twitter, you can see what we and others are saying ABOUT keyschool, and by monitoring @keyschool, you can see what Key School is saying about itself.

So, I welcome all those who’ll help me work the Twittersphere. Please send me an email at dmcglauflin@earthlink.net or a message to me on Twitter to @dmcglauflin to let me know if you’re able to help and if you have other ideas. I’m sure they’re are others in our community who know a lot more about Twitter than I do!

Remember that each tweet can only be 140 characters long, including any hashtags, so you have to be short and sweet! Also, keep it to one tweet and one retweet a day to #keyschool or other hashtags to avoid getting Twitter mad at you for spamming (they’re getting pricklier about that lately).

Last but not least, as we all agreed in today’s meeting, let’s be VERY careful to stick to the facts on the PAR website and not muddy the waters with opinions and rants that could be used by the school’s lawyers against us.

The ARPOA board has made it clear that their goal is to protect the covenants. If so, why is PAR necessary? Why do we need a second campaign to protect the covenants? Do you believe that a campaign that represents only some of the community’s property owners will be more effective than the board which represents the entire community?

AngryARPO,
You raise an important question, and one that has been discussed at a number of PAR meetings. PAR and the Board are absolutely united in their desire (and in the Board’s case, duty) to defend the covenants. The Board has been a stalwart supporter of PAR’s work, attending and contributing to PAR meetings, and would not have done so if they felt that PAR was working on behalf of only a portion of the community’s residents. PAR’s work protects every homeowner, contrary to your assertion, as we realize that all homeowners would be affected by a further drop in property values already hard hit by the economy, increased traffic, and stress to our beach, overlook, woods and boat ramp caused by a non-tax-paying private school’s use. We have yet to hear of any homeowner who expresses a desire to have the covenants invalidated.

PAR and the Board have both expressed a desire to work together, have declared no support for Key School’s plans, and are working on strategies to ensure the preservation of the covenants.

PAR was formed by residents who have deep experience with land use in the community, and a healthy paranoia about development plans for the parcel, as an immediate and strong statement that individual homeowners in the community have the right to require that the Golf Course parcel be used only for purposes set forth in the covenants. Prior to Key School spending large sums on engineering or other studies, it was important to ensure they knew we’d be standing up for these rights. Any delay in responding to Key School would have sent a different message, and could have adversely affected our covenant rights. Since those rights are not guaranteed, and unless homeowners or the Board actively exercise them, it’s possible for the covenants to be broken, even inadvertently. PAR members were not willing to take the chance that our individual and collective rights to enjoy the quiet residential character of the community would be invalidated.

As you recall, Key School timed their announcement of the purchase to coincide with our Board election. There was another unfortunate coincidence—the Key School Board President’s wife endorsed a particular slate of candidates just prior to Key’s announcement, recommending that the community replace the entire existing board, which effectively wiped out all institutional knowledge and experience with land use, and creating an advantage for Key that demanded a prompt and vigilant assertion of ARPOA members’ rights.

There was also a danger that if a pool and clubhouse were offered, it would distract residents from the real intent of any Seller, which is to maximize his selling price, in this case by getting ARPOA to break the covenants, so that rezoning could occur. Once rezoned, the value of the property would skyrocket. Annapolis Roads could then have condos, apartments or other high-density housing to contend with, destroying the quiet residential nature of our community, and adversely affecting property values for all Annapolis Roads Property Owners.

Judging by your posting time, this is keeping you up at night. We understand, as we’ve spent many sleepless nights working to protect this community. We hope our response puts to rest any concern that PAR is working at cross-purposes with our own Board, and further clarifies the urgency of our response.

Anonymous:
Your question provides you with its own answer. If the original ARPOA board had been sufficiently attentive and responsive to this issue when it originally surfaced, then there would not have been any motivation for a grass-roots movement such as PAR. However that apparently was not the case, in the opinion of the many Annapolis Roads residents who have joined to form PAR. Your assertion that PAR is not needed is completely irrelevant, Annapolis Roads residents enjoy the right of free assembly shared by all US citizens, with or without your approval.

Why don’t the residents of annapolis roads just pool their money and simply purchase the golf course themselves. Then there are no more legal battles or bickering. Not only would you be able to control what happens with the site, you would have increased property values too.

I am curious to know what “other recreational uses” are permitted by the covenants. There is a indication in the text above that “passive recreation” would be allowable but that phrase seems like an oxymoron. Also, I wonder whether golf instruction has ever been offered on the golf course.

Kathy,
Jake read a prepared statement in which he said that on advice of counsel, the Board will not be joining the PAR suit. They’ve met with their attorney and are exploring a number of ways, or paths, to preserve the covenants, including the possibility of initiating separate litigation, but were advised by counsel not to disclose any details. Please contact any Board member for clarification, and check the meeting minutes, as they are likely to have more details. We’ll ask for a copy of the prepared statement to be made available, as that is the best way to make sure everyone is clear on the Board’s position as of last night.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of turning the property into a real, 18 hole golf course? This assumes that the ajacent wooded track of land can also be purchased and used. My thought is that the first nine holes could be “links style” with wide open fairways, such as they are now. The back nine holes could be carved out of the wooded track, while preserving many of the trees that are currently there. What you would have is a golf course with two distinctive nine hole layouts, giving players two very different styles of play on the same course. Highlands Links in Cape Breton, Canada is set up in very much the same way, and is considered a beautiful “destination” course in golfing circles. Likewise, Annapolis is a destination city, and a golf course of such close proximity to downtown would, in my estimation, be a money maker. Yes, it would be more expensive to play, but it would also be a much better course than what is now there.

I understand that Annapolis Roads residents don’t want to lose their golf course. However, the property owner has a right to make money, and I think the best way to make this property commercially viable while still keeping the covenants intact is to build a real, world-class 18 hole golf course. I think this would be an excellent addition to the Annapolis Neck Peninsula which would still preserve the land as open space.

Let me know what you think. This is not just some crazy musing of mine. I’m serious about this proposal.

David,
Thanks for articulating your proposal. It’s fair to assume that the residents, all of whom bought their property in a golf course community, would be in favor of keeping the golf course and would approve of its continued use for that purpose.

There are several issues with your idea, however. First, the adjacent 33 acres of woods was purchased by the community and placed into a conservation easement, so that land is not available to be developed for any purpose. The community acted, nearly unanimously, under the assumption that preserving open space enhances the value of all homes in the community. Second, the Key School is the contract purchaser of the property, which they plan to develop into a sports complex that supports their plans for the future of their physical education program, and other educational uses. Until the legal challenge is settled, or Key School decides not to purchase the property, there’s little opportunity for the current owner to consider thoughtful, environmentally sound, and economically viable alternatives.

No one disputes the current owner’s right to sell the property, which he purchased with full knowledge that it was encumbered by the existing covenants, or to make money as a golf course operator, which he’s had ample opportunity to do over the years. The community’s homeowners are simply exercising their legal rights under the covenants to determine how the property is used (which affects their quality of life and determines the economic value of their homes), and to prevent the breaking of those covenants, which restrict the allowed uses of (and therefore impacts the profit to be made on the sale of) the golf course property.

Par4, I appreciate your response. I know the Key School owns the property now, but I was unaware that the adjacent 33 acres was in a conservation easement, and therefore not available for development. That pretty much shoots down my whole idea of an 18 hole course. And while it is a moot point, I do wonder, if the 33 acres was available, would the comnunity even then support a full-service 18 hole course?

As it stands now, without a major renovation, I would be hard pressed to say that the course would make money. I understand that, to many Annapolis Roads residents, it’s been almost like having your own private course–heck, I lived here for more than ten years before I discovered it five years ago–but it’s not much of a course at that. I’m sure the owners do their best with the resources they have, and I applaud them for that. Our country is dotted with old, diminutive nine hole gems in an era bent on developing 7,000 yard monsters, but unfortunately, and for reasons unknown to me, this is not one. It still has potential, but probably the only option available is to do some “double greens” like they do in Scotland. That may perhaps give you three or four more holes, but it still wouldn’t be an 18 hole layout. I’ve played double greens in the U.S., and they are quite interesting, though they take a little getting used to.

Again, thanks for your response. I’ll keep checking in to see if there are new developments.

David,
Minor correction: Key does not yet own the property–they have not closed on it yet; they have told us they will do so after they complete “due diligence.” As you may already know, the legal process for land use issues such as this can take years to adjudicate, so their development plans are by no means a done deal. Stay tuned, and keep your good energy coming our way. We appreciate it!

Par4: Thanks for the clarification. Having done much due diligence work for clients over the years, I would advise caution closing on a property where the surrounding community may or may not support anything you do to add value to the property, thus making it more useful to you and your customers, or in this case, Key School students. This intangible can not be ignored, as such matters distract from your mission. Likewise, if I, or someone else had purchased the property to develop into an improved golf course, I would want support from the community, even though the changes necessary to turn it into a profitable operation might not be popular with everyone. However, I’m one of those optimists who think we can find common ground by addressing everyone’s concerns, except perhaps a handful of people who don’t want any change at all.

I don’t have all the facts, but based on what I know, Key School may yet walk away from this deal.

I grew up in Annapolis Roads and my parents have lived here for 40 years. I hope this deal with Key School does not go through.

If it fails, is there any possibility of an organization like the Nature Conservancy purchasing the land and turning it back to forest? I’m not sure if they have ever purchased a golf course or land that they have to not only protect, but also restore.

Also, landmark forest legislation was passed a couple of months ago. http://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2013/05/02/governor-omalley-signs-landmark-forest-legislation/
From the above link – “Healthy forests support our economy, our communities, human health and our natural world,” said Governor O’Malley. “This landmark legislation will ensure we are using the most efficient and sustainable practices, to not only maintain our forests, but strengthen and expand them. It is vital we take the steps today that will ensure a smarter, greener, more sustainable Maryland for the generations of tomorrow.”

In addition to the no-net-loss requirements, Maryland’s Forest Preservation Act of 2013 (House Bill 706) adds a dual sustainability certification of State Forests requirement, and extends tax benefits to more Marylanders who work to increase tree cover on their property.

“Protecting Maryland’s forests with a no-net-loss of forests policy is crucial to the health of local rivers, streams and the Chesapeake Bay,” said Alison Prost, Maryland executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “We applaud Governor O’Malley and Maryland’s legislators for recognizing how important forests are for water quality, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat and recreation.”

Until now, landowners could deduct between 10 and 500 acres worth of forestry expenses from their income tax liability. This legislation expands that amount to 3 to 1,000 acres, making more private property owners eligible for tax credits. By including smaller land areas, more Marylanders will have incentive to convert residential turf to trees, and increase, retain and manage forest cover on these properties. Forest stewardship activities include tree plantings, creating and maintaining forested stream buffers, controlling invasive species, and other best management practices that improve forest health.

Maybe the legislation could be used somehow to prevent development of the parcel in the future? To maintain no-net-loss of canopy there must be forest mitigation efforts in the same county as construction activity. Since this area is so close to the Bay maybe the State or County should buy the land and use it for forest mitigation.

I work for the EPA in the Philadelphia office (our Region includes Maryland) and we are very aware of the reforestation efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. There are people that would argue that planting trees is the BEST thing you can do to help the Bay (water quality/air quality/climate change/habitat).

From the following website http://sustainability.tufts.edu/carbon-sequestration/ you can see that a 25 year old maple-beech-birch forest will sequester/up take 1760 pounds of CO2 per acre per year and a 25 year old white and red pine forest will sequester nearly 10,000 pounds of CO2 per acre per year. I don’t know how many acres the parcel consists of, but this may be useful/valuable information.

I’m not against the golf course, just thinking of alternatives. The golf course is certainly better than a parking lot and buildings and traffic associated with playing fields.

Thanks for this informative comment. There are many in the neighborhood who fear for the environment for exactly the reasons you’ve laid out, and are working tirelessly to enforce the covenants that were meant to preserve the open space based on the protective zoning that was in place until recently. Bill 15-12 changed that protective zoning, over the objections of every environmental group and community in AA County who objected to the content, and the haste with which it was passed.

As you are no doubt aware, the 33 acres of forest that surround the parcel were purchased by the community by a nearly unanimous vote (only 4 against), a show of community cohesiveness that proves the power of communities to exercise self-determination. The land is now protected by a conservation easement in perpetuity. We appreciate your ideas, and should the parcel become available for purchase to another buyer who wishes to preserve the golf course or otherwise work with the community to find a use consistent with the covenants, we’ll certainly be there to protect the quiet residential nature of the community we all love so fiercely.

Thanks again for weighing in from the perspective of a long-time resident. We hope that the children living in Annapolis Roads today have the opportunity to grow up in the same peaceful, verdant and unique community that you did.

What is the status of the construction? Does the school know how historicalally significant the golf course is? Can something be done with the Annapolis historical society to save the course under a heritage listing?
The course doesn’t need to be 18 holes. I know of a group of investors who would like to purchase it to preserve the golf course.